Uh, no. You interjected yourself into a conversation you didn't bother to understand, and to which your pithy observations about what Obama or Hawaii has or has not provided to date are irrelevant. The conversation was discussing a hypothetical case where a state passes a law requiring a birth certificate to get on that state's ballot in 2012. At that point, a candidate would be obligated to request his state provide a certified copy to the questioning state.
Presuming the state can do so, what then are the limits on the requesting state's specifications? The only limit is that the requesting state's legislation would not be able to demand a level of detail beyond what the originating state provides to its citizens. The full faith and credit clause would require accepting the originating state's documentation. For example, if all they issue is a COLB, that's what you have to accept. If they provide either a COLB or a long form photocopy, then you can get the one you specified.
“2. Any law citing the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC has a great chance of withstanding challenges based on ... what?? Hope and Change?? What else do you have that trumps the Supreme Court and its definition??”
I don't think you are correct in your presumption of the Supreme Court definition you cite. I don't think your sentence says grammatically what it intended, either. In any event, I doubt that your personal belief will be upheld if ever put to the test. But if you want to know, get a state to legislate a requirement putting it to the test. Obama and the DNC will challenge it, and it will be ruled upon with subsequent appeals. Then the matter will truly be settled.
1. Tired and old is no excuse for ignorance. The full faith and credit clause is a non-sequitur. There are, however, national standards for vital records and birth documentation. So, yes, most states, if not all, issue by default a birth abstract, rather than a traditional long form birth certificate, however, when such a document is actually presented, it can be physically acertained as legitimate, especially if its provided directly from the state of issue rather than from a candidate or staff member. A jpg of alleged vital record would not be sufficient. It’s dumb to sit here and pretend like we’re not talking about Obama and instead some hypothetical candidate. You’re worred about a law requiring some mythical ‘excess’ documentation, when in Obama’s case, we wouldn’t even have the minimum standard legal documentation to begin with.
The other part of your problem is that people whose births were originally registered on long forms can still get copies of these long forms. Their generally used for genealogical purposes because they list information about the parents and not just the child. If it was necessary for such documentation in order to resolve a question, such documentation can be provided. It’s silly to believe otherwise.
2. You keep expressing disbelief, but you aren’t providing any real substance to explain your disbelief. Chief Justice Waite rejected Viriginia Minor’s claim of 14th amendment citizenship in Minor v. Happersett because he said she was already a natural born citizen. He said such persons were born in the country to parents who were citizens and tied this directly to Art II Sec I (presidential eligibility).
The question now would be, who does the 14th amendment apply to in terms of persons who become citizens at birth?? The 14th specifies persons born in the country, so it has to apply only to people born of non-citizen parents, since Waite rejected it for NBCs. Justice Gray read this decision and cited this definition. He was unable to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. He went on a lengthy diatribe about English common law and how persons could be born as citizens without regard to the status of the parents, but he NEVER called such people NBCs. Second, he made it clear that he understood Minor’s decision as declaring citizenship by virtue of place AND by virtue of parentage. “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...”
Gray also made a second distinction between NBC and 14th amendment citizenship at birth. NBC, he noted was defined outside of the Constitution. The 14th amendment citizenship at birth was defined by circumstanced IN the constituion, specifically in the 14th amendment itself.
What definition do we have that trumps the Supreme Court?? What exactly could Obama or the DNC challenge this definition with?? You need more than a nunnn uhhhh!